IRW Ontology#
Text 2024-06-20, für eine Diskussion auf dem Dagstuhl-Forschungstreffen Applied Machine Intelligence 2024
Themenbereich, Kontext:
Die Semiotik von RDF
Anwendung: Linked Open Data
Warum beschäftigt mich dieses Thema:
Historie: Technische Doku, siehe auch die Projeke von Fabienne
aktuell: Linked Open Data, insbesondere aus einer Vorlesung ganz aktuell https://www.govdata.de/
letztlich die Theorie zu GenDifS 0.7 (in Arbeit): Wer eine graphische Sprache zur Modellierung von Ontologien (oder hier auch “nur” Taxonomien) entwirft, muss ganau wissen, was die Formalismen bedeuten, in die er seine graphischen Elemente übersetzt.
Interessant: Je genauer man hinschaut, desto fundamentaler sind die Fragestellungen. Diese Seite: Materialsammlung zu vertieften analytischen Beschreibungen des Problems. Zielgruppe: ausgebildete Ontologien und Logiker.
Kontext: httpRange-14 und WEMI#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPRange-14:
httpRange-14 is a long-running logical conundrum or design problem in the semantic web. The problem arises because when HTTP is extended from referring only to documents to talking about real-world things (planets, flowers, emotions, Platonic forms, etc) the domain of HTTP GET becomes undefined
mehr zum Problem:
2009halpin-SolvingIdentityCrisisWeb#
2009halpin-SolvingIdentityCrisisWeb: [HP09] (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-02121-3_39.pdf)
Hint
2.1 Two Viewpoints:
direct reference position […] a URI identifies whatever it was intended by the owner to identify […] the referent is generally considered to be some individual unambiguous single thing like the Eiffel Tower or the concept of unicorns […] This viewpoint is the one generally held by many Web architects, like Berners-Lee, who imagine it holds not just for the Semantic Web, but the entire Web
The second position, the logicist position, holds that for the Semantic Web, a URI refers to whatever model(s) – including actual things – that satisfy the formal semantics of the Semantic Web. Adherents of this position hold that the referent of a URI is almost always ambiguous, as many different models can satisfy an interpretation of a RDF graph. This position has been championed extensively against Berners-Lee by Hayes, as Hayes believed that the direct ref- erence position “doesn’t make sense, that it isn’t true, and that it could not possibly be true” as it contradicts the standard interpretation of Tarski-style formal semantics [16]. A URI has no identity in and of itself, but only in the context of its use in a graph or, in a minor variation argued for by Parsia and Patel-Schneider, the explicit use of owl:imports [23]. This position is generally held by those who claim that the Semantic Web is entirely distinct from the hypertext Web. (p. 524)
Hint
2.2 The TAG’s Resolution
The TAG officially resolved httpRange-14 by saying that the 303 See Other HTTP header can serve to disambiguate between information resources and possible non-information resources. The official resolution to Identity Crisis by the TAG is given below as [13] [Con06]:
If an HTTP resource responds to a GET request with a 2xx response, then the resource identified by that URI is an information resource;
If an HTTP resource responds to a GET request with a 303 (See Other) response, then the resource identified by that URI could be any
If an HTTP resource responds to a GET request with a 4xx response, then the nature of the resource is unknown.
halpin2010-WhenOwlSameAsIsntTheSame#
[HHM+10]
hayes2008-DefenseAmbiguity#
IRE ontology (presutti2008-IdentityResourcesEntitiesWeb)#
Valentina Presutti and Aldo Gangemi: Identity of Resources and Entities on the Web
presutti2008-IdentityResourcesEntitiesWeb: [PG08] (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220123871_Identity_of_Resources_and_Entities_on_the_Web)
4 The IRE metamodel. Referencing is analyzed in the IRE design by assuming four layers. These layers distinguish the types of things in the domain of the web referencing problem: URI, web resource, information object, and entity, as shown in Figure 2. An example of layering is the following: the URI “http://www.w3.org” identifies a file (a web resource), stored on a W3C server that is accessed when the above URI is resolved; the file is made up of e.g. linguistic or XHTML information (a set of information objects); that information is about the actual W3C organization (a real world entity).
We say that a web resource realizes some information object. The realizes relation is the same that holds for example between a poem (an information object) and the printed book containing it (its realization). Consider also that same poem as realized by a web document: it would be a different occurrence of the realizes relation for that same information object.
DAS IST WEMI!
Between Facts and Knowledge - Issues of Representation on the Semantic Web#
Autor: rat10/nng (rat10: Thomas Lörtsch)
Großes, kenntnisreiches Werk:
Thomas Lörtsch: Between Facts and Knowledge - Issues of Representation on the Semantic Web. Master Thesis in Applied Computer Science (M.Sc.), FernUniversität in Hagen, Version 1.0.2, [commit: Nov 6, 2023] rat10/nng > Between.pdf : [Lortsch]
owl:sameAs#
Conolly: A Pragmatic Theory of Reference for the Web#
Insbesondere auch Erwähnung von Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI)
Dan Connolly: A Pragmatic Theory of Reference for the Web (2006), [Con06]
It is stipulated by all parties in the httpRange-14 discussion that in this case, the
hello world.body of type text/plain is a representation of http://site.example/ path. [Con06]
Berners-Lee [ agreed] that the term document is misleading. The TAG coined the term Information Resource. The term is not completely defined, but the 15 Jun 2005 decision of the TAG to address httpRange-14 says:
Advice: Use Hash Uris for Properties and Classes. Some argue that “Using # [in this way] makes it impossible to make assertions about parts of documents (e.g. Person A authored Section #3).”[1]. Indeed, this is a concern. Let’s consider it formally, using FRBR[18], [19].